39
comments:

“Geden tries to make up with provocative rhetoric what he is lacking in arguments — and his claim simply disagrees with what most scientific assessments have shown,” Stefan Rahmstorf, a climatologist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, told BuzzFeed News by email.

“It is certainly the case that preventing 2 degree warming is still very much physically possible,” Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said by email. “The only obstacles at this point are political will, not physics.”

Leaders of the IPCC, meanwhile, deny that they have succumbed to pressure to deliver a politically acceptable message. It was scientists themselves who decided to explore what would be necessary to meet the 2-degree target, Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist also at the Potsdam institute, told BuzzFeed News. He is co-chair of the IPCC working group studying ways to mitigate climate change."

(...)

"Even if the 2-degree target is scientifically feasible, however, some experts argue that it is impractical — and worse, is getting in the way of a meaningful debate about how to respond to climate change.

The 2-degree target makes sense only in the computer models run by climate scientists, argues Glen Peters, a climate policy specialist at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway. “In the real world, you have to include political feasibility,” he told BuzzFeed News by email.

I am grateful to Oliver for his article, and to Werner for his summation of interesting responses. The other relevant issue is that two degrees is not a line separating safe and dangerous climate change.

It took me a while to really come to terms with this excellent article. We have discussed many of its elements here on Klimazwiebel as well as in Die Klimafalle", and as such this article is highly welcome.

Oliver presents the current dilemma of climate science in a nutshell, and his diagnosis does not come as a surprise: of course, climate science once again ends up being deeply enmeshed in climate policy and political negotiations. How could it be different?

Climate science introduced from the beginning anthropogenic climate change as a science-based problem; on this basis, climate science actively framed the perception of the problem as well as the political process - not at least by introducing the 2 degree target. Seen from this perspective, it is impossible to separate science from politics, as they constitute each other.

I fully agree with Oliver's description of the permanent double-bind climate scientists' end up in; on the one hand they want to provide "the science", on the other they want to support the political process according to the science-based political agenda. But how to escape this double-bind?

To paraphrase Oliver: maybe it is also the other way round and government administrations and non-governmental organizations "must defend their independence from scientific interference" - they must learn to wisely use science instead of becoming dependent from it. This would also give climate science more time to conduct research on climate instead of assuming the role of being the better climate politicians.

""must defend its independence from outside interference". Here comes my question: is this possible at all?"

This sentence is unclear. What is possible? the "must", the "defense" or the achievement of "independence of outside interference"? I would assume that the defense is possible, but the complete success of the defense impossible. The success would be something, you would call a "fact", which hardly (can) exist(s), while the "defense" would be social process, which is possible. Can you defend somthing what does not exist? Or would you defend a social construct?

Of course, you have to say, a separation of the spheres is impossible (because they do not exist as spheres), and for this finding you would not sucessfullly pass a seminar in anthropology. The question is, what would Oliver describe as "success"? What would others consider a success? Or under which circumstances would a "defense" have an effect, which effect, on science-policy interaction, on public perception of the issue, on the social process of science etc.

About the only person, who speaks ongoingly about the separation of science and policy here on Klimazwiebel, is you - only to make the point that such a separation is impossible. Indeed, they are not separable, because science is a social process with social acteurs called scientists, but these concepts are nevertheless different social processes. What makes them different? - that is the issue. Which diffference would (or "must", to quote Oliver) we like to "defend"?

I suggest that we discuss this again in the framework of the Poppenbüttel example.

The political goal is - I want to be in Poppenbüttel (from St Georg) before 21:00. It implies that you do not want to be in Eimsbüttel at that time, nor in Qingdao.

Science is asked - do you think this possible?

Answer - depends on the time of departure; if you leave after 21:00, no, you cannot.

If you leave at 12:00 you can walk or use any of the following options. Yes, is certainly possible, if your health allows and other conditions are as expected. No risk for third parties. You may not have an afcternoon swim in the Alsterschwimmhalle, what you otherwise had planned for

If you leave at 19:00 you can bike or use any of the following options. Yes, is certainly possible, if conditions are as expected. Almost no risk for third parties. You have to adjust your priorities accordingly (as in the following cases)

At 20:00 you an use your car (or use any of the following options; I leave public transportation out for the sake of cimplicity) staying within speed limits. Yes, is certainly possible, if it is not a no-car-travel day, and no a marathon underway and other conditions are as expected. Some risk for third parties.

At 21:30 - you can do it by car if you speed (or use any of the following options). Probably that is doable, if there are no policy surveillance, no marathon etc). enhanced risk, some extra burden for others.

at 21:50 - you can do it by either speeding very strongly, by getting all other cars from the street or if all lights are turned green for you (or use any of the following options). Quite unlikely. Problem may be that somebody else has convinced the police to turn all light green for somebody who wants to go to Eimsbüttel, or a demonstration is blocking streets. Very enlarged risk and additional burden for other societal activities.

At 20:55 - you would need a flying car and permission to use it (or use any of the following options). Technology untested, permission unavailable; extremely unlikely. Very risky for third parties.

At 20:59 - use teleporting. Technology not existing. Extremely risky for others and yourself.

Given these restrictions, one may want to think of alternatives, such as a telcon, arriving late, giving up (revising the goal), or something of that sort.

The issue here is a constant goal (arriving in Poppelbüttel before a certain time), but that the set of options decreases when time becomes shorter. I would say - science should tell this story; policy-making process must assess the options, select and decide. Are scientists better in choosing? Or is any other group (such as vatican) better or more legitimated in choosing? - No, in my value system they are not.

It is just the concept of an Honest Broker, as explained in Roger Pielke's book.

Completing Hans example, there are additional complications. To set an inflexible arrival time is very German - pun intended - and other people may feel that it is unnecessary inflexible., even more so when the arrival time is not scientifically set (why 21:00 and not 21:02 or 20:55. 21:00 plus minus how much ? ) but it has rather has been 'decided' in back rooms conversations.Those people may suspect that this inflexibility may hide other purposes, for instance, to force upon everyone else the use of a particular mean of transportation . This suspicion is reinforced at the moment when, someone like Geden, suggests that to achieve that goal is unrealistic , those Germans insist that the goal is achievable after all if we only agree to submit to some undefined sacrifices. Are they trying to impose on us the use of *their* technology/view of the world ?

If i were not a scientist, all this would indeed look to me very suspicious. The very same people that set the 21:00 target search the support of someone like the Catholic Church, who of course has always support science in the past.

"I would say - science should tell this story; policy-making process must assess the options, select and decide. Are scientists better in choosing? Or is any other group (such as vatican) better or more legitimated in choosing? - No, in my value system they are not."

Geden was accused of an ivory-tower view of things and in my opinion HvS analogy makes this type of thought even more clear. It is a valid academic approach to leave out the hard and parts concentrate on this interesting and manageable sub-problem, like how speed, means of transport, accident-statistic and departure- and arrival-time depend on each other when trying to reach Poppenbüttel from St Georg.

What is conveniently left out, by von Storch and Geden,is 1) why it is so terribly hard to leave on time, and 2) why is it so terribly important to arrive before 21:00?

In reality, you are having a swell of a party in St Georg, free booze and coka and that hot woman is really interested. And in Poppenbüttel, an evil daemon will roll a dice each minute you are late and cut off one of your limbs for each 6 or 5 rolled. No sorry, not one of your limbs. You'll be fine. Actually, an anonymous African child will be mutilated.

For the real problem, the one that societies have to deal with as a whole, Geden's text is as irrelevant as von Storch's analogy and only proves, ironically, that the academic personnel is not necessarily well equipped to advise at the current stage. Next to politics, this is mainly a moral and ethical issue, so at least it is in the Pope's job description, even though his institution's ethical track record has not been without criticism during the last 2000 years.

Sure, the choice of setting 21:00 is an issue which should be questioned. But it would not be scientific question, but a political question (such as those mentioned by Eduardo), so that all people have the same legitimation to ask why this choice, why this prioritization? Then scientists can contribute as individuals, as part of political movements. But a professional organization such as the Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft is equally legitimized as the Bundesverband Deutscher Friseure.

For us as a professional group, the problem is that many professionals are so arrogant to believe that they should have a larger weight in political decisions because they can use words like vorticity and entropy.

Another issue is when we speak of "scientific" questions as opposed to "political" - what do we mean? Some mean that such a distinction is not possible and without meaning, what do others mean? One answer could be - "scientific" is a questions, when it can be answered with the scientific method (whatever that is), or that scientists (whoever that is) are better equipped to answer them than other professionals. "Political"? - Maybe when answers are constructed in the logic of the societal system, such as majority opinion or persuasion.

In any case, a result of this debate is for me that I have not done my homework in clarifying what I mean with certain terms.

There are several issues mixed up in the above discussion, and perhaps in Geden's paper. I will mention only two.

One is the role of science in policy making, the other the question if we have a chance to avoid dangerous warming.

With regard to the first question, social science wisdom has it that science as such cannot act, only its representatives can. Individual scientists and scientific organisations can speak and act on behalf of science--but such attempts are often challenged by other scientists and scientific groups. The IPCC is an organisation that has tried to speak for 'the science' by assessing the relevant knowledge base in an authoritative way (the irony being that it is an interGOVERNMENTAL organisation).

Combining both issues we are faced with a conundrum: if scientists want to speak to the science only and keep their independence, they peddle raw science to policy makers, which they in turn see as useless. If scientists want to be policy advisors, they are in the business of narrowing options and unlikely to be seen as independent. The IPCC has failed to find a way out of this conundrum.

We should remind ourselves of the many other policy areas where we do have a plurality of experts (many non scientists) and healthy and robust public discussions (including critical journalists, and increasingly members of the public), without the feature that some actors hide behind a wall of scientific authority. [Note: it is especially irritating to witness green groups and critical social scientists being taken in by this strategy].

Now to the point about avoiding dangerous warming, which is the goal of the UNFCCC and which was defined as staying within the 2 degree C limit. So far, no real progress has been made in emissions reductions. Geden points to implausible rhetoric of some climate scientists and activists who have put out more optimistic messages despite the sobering reality. In so doing, policy options have been articulated which could still be interpreted as leading to a success, i.e. avoiding the magic number 2. This is where the credibility of some climate scientists might be at stake, when increasingly implausible assumptions have to be made.

Perhaps it is time to reconsider what it means to avoid ‘dangerous warming’ and to redefine climate policy, paying attention not only to carbon emissions, but to all climate forcings; to adaptation; to technological innovation; and to national capabilities.

Given that climate sensitivity is only known within something like a factor of 4, it is hard for me to understand what exactly we are trying to do. I would use Dr. Storch's list of successive alternative, but also add a new list: well, if TCR turns out to be ..., then you can do ... But, if it turns out to be ..., then you can only do... If it turns out be ..., sorry, it's too late.

@HvSIt is certainly a difficult question. On the one hand side it is hard to abandon the idea that there is scientific, objective, value-neutral information, which could be made available to society, on the other hand, in this area where alone the choice of which question to ask or answer already frames the political discussion in this or the other way, it is very tempting and seems unavoidable to axiomatically declare "everything is political".

"But a professional organization such as the Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft is equally legitimized as the Bundesverband Deutscher Friseure".

In our society nobody needs legitimization to ask question or make statements and we like to keep it that way.

The question is: Whose opinion should have influence and whose should be ignored? I want health politics be influenced more by Cochrane Society than by the Homoeopathic Society, climate politics rather by the IPCC than Heartland and Breakthrough Institute, environmental policy rather by Greenpeace than by Syngenta (examples deliberately selected to make clear that these are subjective value judgements). Traditionally, around here, this (ideally) is decided via the Democratic Process. And this process critically requires that everybody, private *and in particular* in her professional capacity, who is convinced to know better than most others, speaks out and possibly even fights for influence.

"For us as a professional group, the problem is that many professionals are so arrogant to believe that they should have a larger weight in political decisions because they can use words like vorticity and entropy."

I strongly disagree. If for example an experienced ecologist has a strong opinion about what warming X does to ecosystems globally, but of course there are no hard facts or papers to show, I want to hear that scientist's opinion, loudly. Same applies to your and Eduardo's opinion about the reliability of GCMs, for example. Even knowing that subjective values will have impacted that opinion. That is just more reason to hear loudly from as many experts as possible. And their professional credibility will and should play a large role what weight is attached to their opinions. To call that "arrogant" is chilling a highly desired behaviour, that on the contrary very much needs encouragement, imho.

But we agree, I believe, on a common denominator of arrogance and bad behaviour by scientists. That is if they use their credibility to fake authority on subjects they do not have expertise in. For example if the same ecologist mentioned above pretends to have any expertise in nuclear safety then his credibility should suffer a bit.

A propos. Geden: ".. that time is running out for 2 °C but we can still make it if we act now — is a scientific nonsense." Does "scientific" here refer to Climate Physics and/or Technological Forecasting, or to Political Science?

Others respond by, in my view, missing the point. Stefan Rahmstorf and Michael Mann both insist that Geden is wrong, that 2°C is still physically possible.

I don't take that as the main thrust of Geden's argument, though. Lots of things are physically possible that nonetheless require heroic assumptions about collective human behavior (like, say, aggressive mitigation policy, in the face of powerful vested interests, harmonized across the globe, sustained for decades ... and also many gigatons worth of BECCS). The question is not whether such a scenario violates hard laws in the physical sciences, but whether it is reasonable to expect given what we know about human beings.

That's not really a scientific judgment, though, is it? Geden makes the same mistake when he writes, "the climate policy mantra — that time is running out for 2°C but we can still make it if we act now — is a scientific nonsense." No. It may be a nonsense, but it's not a scientific nonsense. No branch of science, certainly not climatology, can tell us what the humans of 2050 are capable of. We are all, on that score, making educated guesses, and a knowledge of history, politics, and economics will be just as important to that judgment as any knowledge of the physical sciences.

Dear all, i've just found Your blog googling an earlier post by L. Bengtsson, and i'm very interested to understand your general positions. Many thanks if you could point to me some 'position' posts, which probably appeared early on on this blog.

Back to the comment by O. Geden in Nature (purpose of this post), i do not agree at all with it, but i may have misunderstood some points (i find it rather confused with regards to climatic science conclusions). I agree with some comments above (although my German is poor and i've probably missed some points), mainly on these two points: 1. that "time is running out but we can still make it if we act now" is supported by IPCC conclusions, at least in a probability approach, and it is to me a correct scientific message to deliver; and 2. although scientists are "not democratically elected", we are paid by public money and have to serve society to our best by providing expertise when asked.

I also fully agree with Eduardo's point that the analogy with going to Poppenbüttel is oversimplified: we are dealing here with accumulation of CO2, not (dissipating) energy; and the 2ºC target @2100 has no scientific ground w.r.t. climate (actually i'm pretty much curious to know how this limit was set, if anyone knows the story...).

On a more general perspective, i've landed on Your blog because i can feel a growing contestation against IPCC over the recent years from climate scientists involved with variability (which will dominate most climate signals over the next decades, i agree). However, we have to remember that IPCC mandate by UNFCCC is restricted to climate change induced by human activities; and that research on anthropogenic variability change is difficult. i think IPCC should now focus on this thematic (i've tried to convince people @WGI but not sure they got the message).

You write 'Geden makes the same mistake when he writes, "the climate policy mantra — that time is running out for 2°C but we can still make it if we act now — is a scientific nonsense." No. It may be a nonsense, but it's not a scientific nonsense. No branch of science, certainly not climatology, can tell us what the humans of 2050 are capable of'.

The issue is not what humans of 2050 are capable of (if we leave it until 2050 it will be too late) but what humans of today are capable of, for it is today (or yesterday) that action is required.

Sustainable use of KLIMAZWIEBEL

The participants of KLIMAZWIEBEL are made of a diverse group of people interested in the climate issue; among them people, who consider the man-made climate change explanation as true, and others, who consider this explanation false. We have scientists and lay people; natural scientists and social scientists. People with different cultural and professional backgrounds. This is a unique resource for a relevant and inspiring discussion. This resource needs sustainable management by everybody. Therefore we ask to pay attention to these rules:

1. We do not want to see insults, ad hominem comments, lengthy tirades, ongoing repetitions, forms of disrespect to opponents. Also lengthy presentation of amateur-theories are not welcomed. When violating these rules, postings will be deleted.2. Please limit your contributions to the issues of the different threads.3. Please give your name or use an alias - comments from "anonymous" should be avoided.4. When you feel yourself provoked, please restrain from ranting; instead try to delay your response for a couple of hours, when your anger has evaporated somewhat.5. If you wan to submit a posting (begin a new thread), send it to either Eduardo Zorita or Hans von Storch - we publish it within short time. But please, only articles related to climate science and climate policy.6. Use whatever language you want. But maybe not a language which is rarely understood in Hamburg.